TV tech experts and credibility

Wonder why that tech "expert" on your local TV station never says anything bad about a product? Or why, if you see a satellite news report from a technology trade show, it's always persistently praising a gaggle of gadgets in three minutes or less?

It may be because the expert was paid -- either directly or indirectly -- by the manufacturer. It's a common practice which stations and paid talent rarely disclose to viewers. The Wall Street Journal did a nice job summing up the contradictions and frequently co-dependent relationship between local TV stations and talent this week (subsequently, so did NPR and the Washington Post).

It's also a regular occurrence in the toy industry, as I noted in a piece last December.

When I spent several years doing tech commentary and reviews for the Seattle Fox affiliate, I was occasionally asked if I'd take money to promote products on satellite media tours while I was also working for the station. I declined. I think viewers expect that when an on-air expert is being paid and is talking about a product, it's clear where the money is coming from -- and that money shouldn't come from more than one source at a time.

In situations where a station or network isn't paying a contributor (and a contributor isn't clearly representing and paid by, say, a magazine, newspaper or organization), the station and talent should ask the common-sense question: What will the viewer assume? And they should err on the side of disclosure.

Otherwise, there's a term for it with which journalists should be familiar: appearance of conflict of interest.